# Re: The background to Edgar's book

`On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:`
```
> Jason,
>
> As I've explained on a number of occasions SR has nothing to say about why
> clock times are different in a SHARED same actual present moment in which
> the twins coexist for the rest of their lives after they meet up again.
>

I thought that was exactly the kind of situation SR excelled at explaining.

> SR (actually GR for the twins since their clocks read different due to
> relative accelerations)
>

GR isn't necessary to explain the twin paradox.  If you look at the paths
through space time, no matter how you arrange your view, the twin who
traveled has a shorter path through proper time relative to the twin who
remained home.

> explains perfectly why clock times can end up non-simultaneous, but not
> why that clock time NON-simultaneity occurs in an actual present moment
> simultaneity.
>

You mean it does not explain how something in a different coordinate of
proper time can interact with something with a different coordinate in that
same dimension?  Proper time measures clock time, if you want to see if two
things can interact or not, you should translate it back to coordinate
time.  The coordinate time is still the same for the two twins, since both
traveled the same distance through spacetime over the time they were
separated.

> The fact of an actual Present time simultaneity is the only way we can
> measure and confirm the clock time NON-simultaneity. It is the necessary
> reference to make that observation.
>
> All of SR and GR time theory actually assumes an unrecognized absolute
> background frame of reference against which the clock time phenomena are
> formulable and measurable.
>
> If we can even say things change and a different (or the same) we
> absolutely have to be able to compare them relative to some background
> frame. That unrecognized background frame is Present time which is the same
> for all observers. If there was no common background present time it would
> be impossible to even compare various clock time t values to see if they
> were different or the same. All comparisons assume a shared standard frame
> of reference. That is Present time.
>

> That same common Present time is experimentally confirmed at the same
> space location by the handshakes of observers with different clock times,
> and logically confirmed for spatially separated observers as outlined in my
> previous posts.
>
>

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that without your particular
present time, there would be no way for the twins in the twin paradox to
interact. Is that right?

I am not sure that I agree, but I thank you for answering my question.

Jason

>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Liz,
>>
>> The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
>>
>> I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
>> different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite clear
>> and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is clearly
>> understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is to first
>> understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to see whether it
>> works or not.
>>
>> The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to comprehend
>> it is the assumption there are actually two completely distinct kinds of
>> time. As long as one is confused with the other, specifically as long as
>> Present Moment time is confused with or tried to be measured or described
>> by clock time measures or SR clock time theory, it will be impossible to
>> comprehend. That is sadly true of all critics of the theory here. There is
>> always some attempt to describe or critic Present Moment time with clock
>> time theory. That just doesn't work....
>>
>> In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely accepted, it
>> just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any way whatsoever, it is
>> only and elegantly applicable to clock time as it always was. All of the
>> arguments against my theory presented so far make this mistake of trying to
>> apply and measure Present Moment time on the basis of the clock time theory
>> of SR, and so they all miss the target.
>>
>> And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present Moment
>> time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard for me to see
>> how I could make it any clearer.
>>
>> The basic problem, I fear, is that the notion of a single time is just
>> too massively embedded the people's psyches for them to raise their heads
>> and confront and understand the very obvious and easy to prove fact that
>> it's not true. it's like trying to convince ancient men of the street that
>> the earth was a sphere rather than flat. The evidence, even the visual
>> evidence, is quite clear, but it was still an impossible paradigm shift for
>> them to make.
>>
>> One wonders how long it will take for people to understand and accept
>> that there are two kinds of time. The evidence is overwhelming, but the
>> paradigm shift is apparently just too much for people....
>>
>>
>> If your theory preserves completely the math and time of special
>> relativity, why is some other time required?  What more does P-time explain
>> that isn't covered by relativity?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Edgar
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:40:48 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get some
>>> idea of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was interest to
>>> know if there is any logical or mathematical underpinning to it, if it is a
>>> development of ideas that have been previously published, and so on.
>>>
>>> Getting an instant defensive reaction - and not even from Edgar! - seems
>>> just a wee bit over the top.
>>>
>>> So Edgar, can you fill in the background to you work - the relevant
>>> logic / maths, any other people's works you are building on, theories you
>>> are extending, references, etc?
>>>
>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>
>> For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email